"In 2005, three people were ejected by police from a Bush town hall meeting in Denver after they arrived in a car with a bumper sticker that read, "No More Blood for Oil."" - http://swerveleft.blogspot.com...

Panda- This has nothing to do with private property, as it is a school (public), and it is a First Amendment problem. Also, I think you could've gotten a blog with a little more credibility. There aren't even any links.

America is eff'd up right now and Obama is making it 100x worse. I'm counting down the days to 2012...

At 8/29/2009 7:00:29 PM, Volkov wrote:a) the police officer thought that it would be too disruptive, and the school board has laws against having disruptive materiel on school property (see Tinker vs. Des Moines School District)

That "Will enjoy his FEMA camp" write was uncalled for. That "fascist" comment was also uncalled for. Free speech? Sure, have free speech - get some respect though.

Then clearly, you're not for free speech.

I'm very for free speech; but I think if anyone wants to present themselves as a victim of an attack on their free speech, it is best not to show yourself abusing others with it. I never said that the person cannot disrespect those two gentlemen, I just said that I believe they should show some respect to others - if you show respect to others, they'll most likely show respect back.

That "Will enjoy his FEMA camp" write was uncalled for. That "fascist" comment was also uncalled for. Free speech? Sure, have free speech - get some respect though.

Then clearly, you're not for free speech.

I'm very for free speech; but I think if anyone wants to present themselves as a victim of an attack on their free speech, it is best not to show yourself abusing others with it. I never said that the person cannot disrespect those two gentlemen, I just said that I believe they should show some respect to others - if you show respect to others, they'll most likely show respect back.

Oh, okay. Then I agree.

: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?

At 8/29/2009 9:17:45 AM, Nags wrote:Panda- This has nothing to do with private property, as it is a school (public), and it is a First Amendment problem.

Private property is a First Amendment problem: the First Amendment prohibits only Congress, a huge oversight.

From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.

Although the First Amendment only explicitly applies to the Congress, the Supreme Court has interpreted it as applying to the executive and judicial branches. Additionally, in the 20th century, the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the limitations of the First Amendment to each state, including any local government within a state.

At 8/29/2009 7:00:29 PM, Volkov wrote:a) the police officer thought that it would be too disruptive, and the school board has laws against having disruptive materiel on school property (see Tinker vs. Des Moines School District)

Basically, Tinker (students) wanted to wear an armband in protest of the Vietnam War, and the school suspended them. Court ruled in favor of Tinker.

Holding:

The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, did not permit a public school to punish a student for wearing a black armband as an anti-war protest, absent any evidence that the rule was necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others. Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded.

Volkov said: "...and the school board has laws against having disruptive materiel on school property."

At 8/30/2009 10:29:49 PM, Nags wrote:Basically, Tinker (students) wanted to wear an armband in protest of the Vietnam War, and the school suspended them. Court ruled in favor of Tinker.

Holding:

The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, did not permit a public school to punish a student for wearing a black armband as an anti-war protest, absent any evidence that the rule was necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others. Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded.

Volkov said: "...and the school board has laws against having disruptive materiel on school property."

>Well, that is clearly unconstitutional.

That is because the court ruled that the armbands were not disruptive, thereby recognizing that the school has the ability to prohibit disruptive material.

The unreasonable thing about this ruling is the definition if "disruptive". Obviously, disruptive is subjective, not objective. Nudity, drugs, and violence are objectively disruptive, for the most part anyway. What is disruptive about political speech, although it may be idiotic.

At 8/30/2009 10:36:37 PM, Nags wrote:Ah, I misunderstood. I get it now.

---

The unreasonable thing about this ruling is the definition if "disruptive". Obviously, disruptive is subjective, not objective. Nudity, drugs, and violence are objectively disruptive, for the most part anyway. What is disruptive about political speech, although it may be idiotic.

*steps in*

What is disruptive about this event in particular, as with a lot of other political speech on school property, is the way the poster was designed, with Obama specifically noted on it. That can create a disruption, as others will take it personally; but probably more importantly, it violates the school's idea of trying to be "neutral" with these events. You can say, "socialism is bad," but I don't think you can say, "Obama is a socialist, and socialism is bad," because it implies a bias and can really rile up some people.

At 8/30/2009 10:36:37 PM, Nags wrote:Ah, I misunderstood. I get it now.

---

The unreasonable thing about this ruling is the definition if "disruptive". Obviously, disruptive is subjective, not objective. Nudity, drugs, and violence are objectively disruptive, for the most part anyway. What is disruptive about political speech, although it may be idiotic.

*steps in*

What is disruptive about this event in particular, as with a lot of other political speech on school property, is the way the poster was designed, with Obama specifically noted on it. That can create a disruption, as others will take it personally; but probably more importantly, it violates the school's idea of trying to be "neutral" with these events. You can say, "socialism is bad," but I don't think you can say, "Obama is a socialist, and socialism is bad," because it implies a bias and can really rile up some people.

*steps out*

AND THAT'S CAUSE ONLY ELECTED POLITICANS HAVE THE RIGHT TO RILE UP PE---

*shot*

: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?

At 8/30/2009 10:36:37 PM, Nags wrote:Ah, I misunderstood. I get it now.

---

The unreasonable thing about this ruling is the definition if "disruptive". Obviously, disruptive is subjective, not objective. Nudity, drugs, and violence are objectively disruptive, for the most part anyway. What is disruptive about political speech, although it may be idiotic.

*steps in*

What is disruptive about this event in particular, as with a lot of other political speech on school property, is the way the poster was designed, with Obama specifically noted on it. That can create a disruption, as others will take it personally; but probably more importantly, it violates the school's idea of trying to be "neutral" with these events. You can say, "socialism is bad," but I don't think you can say, "Obama is a socialist, and socialism is bad," because it implies a bias and can really rile up some people.

At 8/30/2009 10:45:49 PM, Nags wrote:Posters can not be biased now? That is awfully dangerous.

Posters can't be biased against or for specific individuals or groups, I would think. I'm just saying what the possible law regarding this is for the school district, I don't actually know if this is what they're doing.

Think of it this way; you can say "socialism is bad," but you can't say "Obama is a socialist, and socialism is bad," because it implies specific statementagainst the individual, instead of a generalized statement against the ideology.

Public schools are meant to be sort of a neutral ground, where while the ideologies could possibly compete, the individuals are meant to be kept out of it. The same would go for something like, "Boehner is a conservative, and conservatives are boners."

At 8/30/2009 10:45:01 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:AND THAT'S CAUSE ONLY ELECTED POLITICANS HAVE THE RIGHT TO RILE UP PE---

*shot*

I think the idea was to keep disturbances off of school grounds, and not about "rights." Anyone has the right to rile up anyone, and if a politician did the same on a school property where it isn't allowed, they would face the same penalty as any other citizen.

At 8/30/2009 10:45:01 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:AND THAT'S CAUSE ONLY ELECTED POLITICANS HAVE THE RIGHT TO RILE UP PE---

*shot*

I think the idea was to keep disturbances off of school grounds, and not about "rights." Anyone has the right to rile up anyone, and if a politician did the same on a school property where it isn't allowed, they would face the same penalty as any other citizen.

There was a huge disturbance when someone wore a "NOBAMA" shirt in my very liberal school.

studentathletechristian8 - You may have your first online girlfriend

Me - I had a MySpace girlfriend, but it turned out to be a 45 year old guy friend.

The NOBAMA shirt sounds reasonable. People getting upset about it is reasonable too. If the school expelled or forced the student to remove the shirt then I would agree that they did so unreasonably.

The poster, on the other hand, was intentionally provocative. It was intended to be disruptive. If the school deemed it inappropriate due to its disruptive nature, then they were within their right to do so.

If the individual wanted to hold up his sign off of the schools grounds, then that should be okay. I saw nothing in the video that suggested that officials would not allow them to do so.

At 8/30/2009 11:14:28 PM, JBlake wrote:I just noticed that this was a Town Hall meeting, so I will have to change my position.

The officer should have handled it better, and definitely should not have said "I can charge you with whatever I want to charge you with."

Definitely agree here. The officer could have handled this much better, but instead he just gave fodder to the video poster.

Also, since this was a town hall meeting - meaning a public meeting with a public official whose salary we pay - then the sign should have been allowed on the grounds.

I disagree here, on the grounds that despite it being an event concerning a public servant, the school property is still there and the rules most likely still apply regardless. Plus, the officer could have been making sure that there was not as much disruption as this sign would have intentionally caused.